UCC Document Community

I've been dealing with Minnesota UCC searches for years and they've always been inconsistent. Sometimes I find filings using Google searches of the SOS website that don't show up in their official search tool. Try googling 'site:sos.state.mn.us MIDWEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY' and see if it finds your missing filing. Weird workaround but it's worked for me before.

UPDATE: Finally got through to Minnesota's UCC office. Turns out there was indeed a data entry error that caused the indexing problem. They're fixing it but said it could take 7-10 business days to update the search database. They confirmed the filing is valid and active, just not properly indexed for name searches. Thanks everyone for the suggestions - calling directly was definitely the right move.

I used Certana.ai recently for a similar equipment financing deal and it caught an issue where my UCC-1 description was actually narrower than what was in the security agreement. Would have left some equipment unsecured if I hadn't caught it. Just upload both documents and it shows you exactly where there might be gaps.

Bottom line - your collateral description needs to reasonably identify what's secured but doesn't need to be a detailed inventory. 'Manufacturing equipment and machinery located at [address]' is usually sufficient. The detailed serial numbers and specifications go in your security agreement. Just make sure the two documents are consistent in scope.

One thing I learned the hard way - make sure your UCC-1 filing doesn't contradict your UCC 9-203 attachment analysis. Had a filing rejected because the dates didn't make sense with the collateral description timing.

This thread is really helpful! I was always fuzzy on the UCC 9-203 timing requirements. So just to confirm - security agreement + value + debtor's rights = attachment, and all three have to exist simultaneously?

Just wanted to add that I've found Pennsylvania's customer service to be pretty helpful when you call with specific search questions. They can sometimes run searches from their end that catch things the public portal misses. Not practical for every search but useful for complex situations.

This whole discussion reinforces why I always recommend using automated document verification tools for any deal over $50K. The manual search process is just too error-prone when you're dealing with name variations, corporate changes, and different filing formats. Tools like Certana.ai can catch inconsistencies that human reviewers miss, especially when you're under time pressure to close deals.

I've been using Certana.ai for UCC document verification and it's been a lifesaver for exactly this type of situation. You upload your corporate documents and draft UCC-1, and it instantly flags any name mismatches or inconsistencies. Caught several potential errors before filing that could have been major headaches later. Worth checking out if you're dealing with complex debtor name situations.

Quick update - I found the issue! Turns out the company did have a name change about 6 months ago that wasn't reflected in some of their contracts. The current legal name is actually 'Midwest Industrial Solutions LLC' (with LLC, not Limited Liability Company). The other variations in the search were from old filings under the previous name. Thanks everyone for the help, especially the suggestion about checking corporate history!